Freeman/Strawman

Carra23

I was looking for a thread that was on this subject a while back but it's locked now.

I was on a course today and at the beginning everyone had to introduce and briefly describe where they work and what they do. One fella worked in the Companies Registration Office (CRO)

After explaining about all the various records they keep on business and companies , he went on to explain that every single business or company trading in the state has to register with them. He also explained the difference between a business and company , basically a business is just a trading name and there is no law to prevent me from registering the very same business name as someone else.

The interesting thing he said was that if you want to use your own name as a business name and trade under it, you DO NOT have to register it with the CRO or any one else for that matter.

Straight away I was thinking thats a bit odd that you have to register any sort of business name except in the case of it being your own. Why is that ? I'm sure some one will come back with a rationale explanation but I am aware of the Freeman ideas and have watched videos on the

strawman theory. They basically say that governments automatically register you as a business/trading name as soon as your parents sign your birth cert. That is also the basis for them believing that we don't actually have to comply with the majority of laws out there as they are based on corporation law and cannot be used over humans, hence the reason why we are refered to as a 'person' which is the legal definition of a corporation.

Any explanation/thoughts on why you wouldn't have to register your own name to trade under ? Is it because it is already registered by someone else acting on your behalf ?

rmacm

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/types_of_employment/self_employment/setting_up_a_business_in_ireland.html

^^^Section on sole traders, if you are a sole trader you can use your name and you need to register with the Revenue Commissioners as being self employed.

If you want to use a business name then you need to register with the CRO so others can tell who is behind the business name.

Torakx

Could it be said then that being a sole trader and registering with the revenue comissioners is making an official statement that you are using your name for business purposes and would like to pay the government for the privilege? (im hinting maybe we have no legal obligation to do so,unless we are as persons/firms/companies are already owned by some shareholders)
Also to get the ball rolling and some possible interesting discussion:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/person.html
PERSON:

Individual, agency, association, branch, corporation, estate, group, partnership, or other entity or organization having legal rights and responsibilities separate from those of other entities and/or of its owners or members. See also juridical person.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/corporation.html
CORPORATION

1. Firm that meets certain legal requirements to be recognized as having a legal existence, as an entity separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations are owned by their stockholders (shareholders) who share in profits and losses generated through the firm's operations, and have three distinct characteristics (1) Legal existence: a firm can (like a person) buy, sell, own, enter into a contract, and sue other persons and firms, and be sued by them. It can do good and be rewarded, and can commit offence and be punished. (2) Limited liability: a firm and its owners are limited in their liability to the creditors and other obligors only up to the resources of the firm, unless the owners give personal-guaranties. (3) Continuity of existence: a firm can live beyond the life spans and capacity of its owners, because its ownership can be transferred through a sale or gift of shares.
2. Municipal authority of a town or city.
3. A very large, usually diversified, firm.

Reading the first half of that above(regarding firms) and considering firm to mean person brings a whole new meaning to it for me.
Im not saying anything for definte is the case,just thought it was interesting and maybe relevant.

Carra23

I watched a video on you tube abouth the theory behind the strawman and though it was interesting. I can't post a link cos in work and youtube is barred but I will try to find it when I get home. here is a link to a site that sort of explains it but it is a bit extreme to be honest http://www.strawmanburneth.com/

The Freeman Ireland website have a template for how to respond to fines like parking tickets etc. I passed through a motorway toll and did not pay so I received a fine in the post. I also received a fine for being on the luas without a ticket.

The request for payment of fines was for €126 in one case and €46 in the other. I responded to both using something like the template on the freeman website and I haven't heard a whisper since ! This wsa about 7 months ago.

I hope I haven't tempted faith here because it's quite possible that a summons will arrive for non payment of fines , though only time will tell !

Torakx

Yes the law can be a funny thing alright.
I remember being in court around the time i was reading into that stuff.
It helped me look alot closer into the law and therefore assisted me in haggling with the court judge over my parking fines.
I wasnt in the car when i got the fine for driving with no insurance.
So i said i admit i was ignorant of the law and parked on a public road with no tax or insurance,
But the car was immobile and i told the judge i pushed it to that spot,so i wasnt driving without insurance.however i wouldaccpet the tax issue.
So i could see the judge thinking.."ok il meet you half way and we will do you for the tax" much to the garda/ticket agents dismay on the opposite side lol. It was funny to see.
so if you do get a summons pay very close attention to the wording while keeping all that freemand stuff in mind too.
You may not need in some cases to get on the judges nerves.
Before i came to the stand or dock
The judge was fighting with another guy and gave him hell so i was suprised when we had a very sensible conversation about it.
She probably just appreciated i could speak ok english and in a respectful way lol
Anyway i would like to see the ticket you got for the luas,but dont know if its suitable to see it posted up here.Im just curious of the exact wording of it mainly.

thecommander

rmacm wrote: »

If you want to use a business name then you need to register with the CRO so others can tell who is behind the business name.

That is the exact answer to the question.

Carra23

rmacm wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/types_of_employment/self_employment/setting_up_a_business_in_ireland.html

^^^Section on sole traders, if you are a sole trader you can use your name and you need to register with the Revenue Commissioners as being self employed.

If you want to use a business name then you need to register with the CRO so others can tell who is behind the business name.

I think either you are wrong about that or the chap who has worked in the CRO for 7 years and shared this fact with me and about 60 other people, was lying for the craic !

Edit: Your are correct if you want to trade under a business name, you do register that's what he told us too but there is one exeption to this rule and that is if the business name is your own name. Example your name is Candy Floss and you want to trade under the business name Candy Floss, you DO NOT have to register with that name with the CRO.

GhostInTheRuins

Carra23 wrote: »

I watched a video on you tube abouth the theory behind the strawman and though it was interesting. I can't post a link cos in work and youtube is barred but I will try to find it when I get home. here is a link to a site that sort of explains it but it is a bit extreme to be honest http://www.strawmanburneth.com/

The Freeman Ireland website have a template for how to respond to fines like parking tickets etc. I passed through a motorway toll and did not pay so I received a fine in the post. I also received a fine for being on the luas without a ticket.

The request for payment of fines was for €126 in one case and €46 in the other. I responded to both using something like the template on the freeman website and I haven't heard a whisper since ! This wsa about 7 months ago.

I hope I haven't tempted faith here because it's quite possible that a summons will arrive for non payment of fines , though only time will tell !

Is that the whole point of the freeman thing I wonder; So that people can get away with doing whatever they like without having to pay the consequences for their actions by trying to claim that they're outside the system, or is there an actual genuine belief behind the whole thing?

clever_name

Carra23 wrote: »

[/B]

I think either you are wrong about that or the chap who has worked in the CRO for 7 years and shared this fact with me and about 60 other people, was lying for the craic !

Edit: Your are correct if you want to trade under a business name, you do register that's what he told us too but there is one exeption to this rule and that is if the business name is your own name. Example your name is Candy Floss and you want to trade under the business name Candy Floss, you DO NOT have to register with that name with the CRO.

I can't remember exactly but I have vague memories of something like this coming up in work years ago, if your name is John Smith and you are going to setup a business as a baker, you trade under the name of John Smith, make a profit & pay your taxes, all is well.

The reason I seem to remember (no idea how accurate it was) is that to register the name John Smith with the CRO would be to try to take ownership and rights to the name, which many people will have.

On a similar track are stories of people who try to copyright their names, one story was that Donald Trump tried to register that name as his intellectual property. From what we were told a lot of the rules are there in the same way many laws are i.e. they are a carryover from very different times and have been amended with patches over time.

Would be curious if someone can confirm this.

Torakx

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

Is that the whole point of the freeman thing I wonder; So that people can get away with doing whatever they like without having to pay the consequences for their actions by trying to claim that they're outside the system, or is there an actual genuine belief behind the whole thing?

Some see it as a means to get away with stuff and others are just sick and tired of being used and abused and wish to learn about their rights as humans as well as citizens,whatever rights they may be or not be.
There is ALOT of money being funneled off by big name bussiness men and politicians that could be going to improving or even making a free transport system.
So its debateable that we should be paying cops(or whoever) to give tickets for using the luas for free when there is alot more money to be accounted for elsewhere that isnt being chased after.
Until this happens your comment might as well be directed at Brian Cowen before anyone else imo.
There are alot of genuine people involved with this movement though.
Its just that its a bit of a threat at the same time so expect alot of loud people to appear out of the background and make it look bad so it can be shut down.
Alot of the older groups i believe were infiltrated and taken over and swung in other directions,so i have a feeling its possible again.

Aswell the whole philosophy is that you are responsible for all and any contracts you enter into.Meaning you take full responsibility for your actions.So its not about advantage,if you enter a legal contract you are expected to fullfill it in the eyes of a "freeman".
I think a ticket for example is an offer to contract.

Yitzhak Rabin

It comes down to liability. If you want to setup a bakery and trade as John Smith, then all is well. However, if your business fails and you owe 200,000 to the flour company, it means they can come after you. They can take your home, your car etc.

However what most people do, is setup a limited liability company, maybe called Smiths finest bakers. Then John Smith trades as normal and pays himself a wage from 'Smiths finest bakers' each week. That means if the business fails, all they can take is what 'Smiths finest bakers' owns, but they can't come after John Smith personally. They are two separate entities.

namloc1980

yekahS wrote: »

It comes down to liability. If you want to setup a bakery and trade as John Smith, then all is well. However, if your business fails and you owe 200,000 to the flour company, it means they can come after you. They can take your home, your car etc.

However what most people do, is setup a limited liability company, maybe called Smiths finest bakers. Then John Smith trades as normal and pays himself a wage from 'Smiths finest bakers' each week. That means if the business fails, all they can take is what 'Smiths finest bakers' owns, but they can't come after John Smith personally. They are two separate entities.

That's correct to a certain extent, however the flour company in this instance may still sue John Smith personally if they can show that he continued to trade the company when he knew that it was going to go out of business i.e. that he was negligent.

thecommander

yekahS wrote: »

It comes down to liability. If you want to setup a bakery and trade as John Smith, then all is well. However, if your business fails and you owe 200,000 to the flour company, it means they can come after you. They can take your home, your car etc.

However what most people do, is setup a limited liability company, maybe called Smiths finest bakers. Then John Smith trades as normal and pays himself a wage from 'Smiths finest bakers' each week. That means if the business fails, all they can take is what 'Smiths finest bakers' owns, but they can't come after John Smith personally. They are two separate entities.

Having a business name, and having a Ltd company are 2 completely separate things.

My first business had a business name, which I registered with CRO. I was still liable for every penny, exactly the same if I traded as my personal name.

A newer company I have is a limited company, which means that I personally am not liable for debts in the company. All that can be taken if all went wrong is the assets of the company.

Point is, you can have a business name, but it doesn't mean that you are protected.

Yitzhak Rabin

thecommander wrote: »

Having a business name, and having a Ltd company are 2 completely separate things.

My first business had a business name, which I registered with CRO. I was still liable for every penny, exactly the same if I traded as my personal name.

A newer company I have is a limited company, which means that I personally am not liable for debts in the company. All that can be taken if all went wrong is the assets of the company.

Point is, you can have a business name, but it doesn't mean that you are protected.

So even as a sole trader you have to register with CRO?

thecommander

yekahS wrote: »

So even as a sole trader you have to register with CRO?

If you use your own name you dont have to do a thing. If you want to use a name other than your own you have to register a business name.

CRO

Carra23

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

Is that the whole point of the freeman thing I wonder; So that people can get away with doing whatever they like without having to pay the consequences for their actions by trying to claim that they're outside the system, or is there an actual genuine belief behind the whole thing?

No that is not the whole point of the movement and I don't have a habit of not paying for public transposrt or toll charges. It was just coincidence the two fines I spoke of arrived around the same time and at that time I was looking into the freeman movement, so thought I would experiment.

As Torax says the movement is really about recognising our rights and recognising how often they are abused. It is not about breaking the law and trying your best to avoid the consequences.

From the little I have looked into it Freemen believe that the legal system used on us is wrong and that we have god given rights that supercede any laws that any governements have made.They believe that the one and only court system to be governed by is the common law system. I'm no expert but what I gather from that is that for a case to be taken against you there needs to be an injured party.

For example if I vandalise your property you have a right to take me to court because you are an injured party. The freemen also believe that we have a right to a trial by a jury of our peers, makes sense to be honest. I a couple of examples of why the system we are governed under is ridiculous.

1. sending people to prison for non payment of a TV licence ! There should be no TV licence. If it is to support our national broadcaster it should be a optional to pay it. I pay it every year and the only thing I use my TV for is PS3.

2. Fining people for not wearing seat belts. People who drive cars are adults and as such should be able to choose to wear a seatbelt. Really if you do not wear a seat belt and have an accident you will only hurt yourself so no need for dovernment intervention here. Fining people for not wearing a seatbelt is a revenue generating exercise and is wrong.

I am not doing a great job of explaining what freemen believe but I suppose basically as long as you live a responsible life and do not i nfringe upon the rights of another living being on the planet, whether that be human, plant or animal there should be no cause for taking you to court but that is not how the system works and it is an abuse of rights.

clever_name

Carra23 wrote: »

2. Fining people for not wearing seat belts. People who drive cars are adults and as such should be able to choose to wear a seatbelt. Really if you do not wear a seat belt and have an accident you will only hurt yourself so no need for dovernment intervention here. Fining people for not wearing a seatbelt is a revenue generating exercise and is wrong.

A small point, I have seen a few road accidents, thankfully nothing too bad, but I know people who have seen some very bad ones. If anyone else is in the car and its bad you will probably hurt them. Dont forget society then has to pay for your ambulance, emergency care and possible long term hospital stay. Should you have the right to not put your kids in special seats?

A bit picky I know but trust me you need to wear a seatbelt.

humanji

Out of curiosity, is not paying for the Luas simply theft? It's using a service and refusing to pay. I'd have thought it the same as hiring a plumber to fix your sink and then refusing to pay him whent he work is done.

I kind of see the basic picture that the Freeman group is trying to create. But all the examples I've read just make them come out looking like Fianna Fail, ie abusing loopholes and refusing to give back to society.

Yitzhak Rabin

Exactly, its too simplistic to say that there has to be an injured party.

If you speed on the road, you may not kill anyone, but you have 'injured' every other road user by putting them at a higher risk of death.
I think that if a 'freeman' wants to not wear his seatbelt and live outside society, they should forgo the right to ambulances, hospitals, fire brigade etc.
Don't want to pay road tax? Fine, build your own road and travel on that.

Civilization itself is built on the idea of a social contract. The freeman want all the benefits of a contract, without any of the responsibilities that go with it.

Carra23

clever_name wrote: »

A small point, I have seen a few road accidents, thankfully nothing too bad, but I know people who have seen some very bad ones. If anyone else is in the car and its bad you will probably hurt them. Dont forget society then has to pay for your ambulance, emergency care and possible long term hospital stay. Should you have the right to not put your kids in special seats?

A bit picky I know but trust me you need to wear a seatbelt.

You have a point but I am not a freeman , I only have a passing interest in the subject . I am not the right man to explain their beliefs and I have probably used bad examples there.

humanji wrote: »

Out of curiosity, is not paying for the Luas simply theft? It's using a service and refusing to pay. I'd have thought it the same as hiring a plumber to fix your sink and then refusing to pay him whent he work is done.

I kind of see the basic picture that the Freeman group is trying to create. But all the examples I've read just make them come out looking like Fianna Fail, ie abusing loopholes and refusing to give back to society.

It probably should be looked at as a crime and I suppose it is no different to stealing the services of a plumber but if you do that to a plumber and he takes you to court, apart from his legal fees all he will look for is what you owe him. It only happened to me once but when I was stopped on the Luas with no ticket, the security guard asked for my address so I asked him what for, he said he needed it for somewhere to send the €45 fine . I explained to him that I ran to catch the tram, had no time to purchase a ticket and that I had the fare in my pocket and would purchase a ticket when I got off. This apparently was not good enough.

Now I understand the purpose of imposing a fine on someone caught fare evading but in the instance of someone producing cash and being prepared to pay the fare that should be more than acceptable. Trying to impose a fine that amounts to close to 20x the original fare is scandalous

phantom_lord

Interesting that this freeman stuff seems to revolve mainly around trying to get out of fines and other obligations. Honourable bunch.

phantom_lord

Carra23 wrote: »

Trying to impose a fine that amounts to close to 20x the original fare is scandalous

Makes perfect sense when you're only going to be caught a small percentage of the time.

Carra23 wrote: »

Now I understand the purpose of imposing a fine on someone caught fare evading but in the instance of someone producing cash and being prepared to pay the fare that should be more than acceptable.

Don't think that would be a very effective deterrent against fare dodgers.

Jimmy the Wheel

phantom_lord wrote: »

Interesting that this freeman stuff seems to revolve mainly around trying to get out of fines and other obligations. Honourable bunch.

A couple of brothers are challenging the drug laws in Scotland, claiming freeman status...

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/39Freemen39-are-told-they-will.6676742.jp


http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=5809

Brown Bomber

phantom_lord wrote: »

Interesting that this freeman stuff seems to revolve mainly around trying to get out of fines and other obligations. Honourable bunch.

Sounds an awful lot like the business community to me.

I am interested though on what you are basing your opinion on.

What Freeman literature have you read? Which of the freeman advocates have you studied? Do all freeman advocates espouse the same ideas?

phantom_lord

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am interested though on what you are basing your opinion on.

If I recall correctly the youtube videos posted about it in the last thread where about one man being in court over a parking fine, another of a man trying to get out of a speeding ticket, and the other of a man trying to avoid paying road tax.

And most of the threads on that freeman Ireland site follow a similar pattern.

Torakx

yekahS wrote: »

Exactly, its too simplistic to say that there has to be an injured party.

If you speed on the road, you may not kill anyone, but you have 'injured' every other road user by putting them at a higher risk of death.
I think that if a 'freeman' wants to not wear his seatbelt and live outside society, they should forgo the right to ambulances, hospitals, fire brigade etc.
Don't want to pay road tax? Fine, build your own road and travel on that.

Civilization itself is built on the idea of a social contract. The freeman want all the benefits of a contract, without any of the responsibilities that go with it.

Show me where i can build my own road/house by myself without getting hassle over permits and taxes.We are a society of course and need to work together for it to work effeciently.This is not happening right now.

There is a root issue that is causing alot of these problems and i would rather see the system fixed than people having to stand up and cause a fuss to show its wrong.
Alot of us here already know about our fiat/debt money system.
Untill this is changed alot of loans are illegal/unlawfull and the interest that is owed all over the country is causing even more issues and sinking us further.
The seat belt example im sure was just an example to make a point.
You should be allowed do what you wish with your body as long as it doesnt affect others negatively imo.
But because revenue is so important more and more rules are coming in for our "protection" of ourselves and others.
Look at the situation in america where they are making abussiness out of building prisons literally.We are heading this way too on a smaller scale.
I would rather see the community flog a person for assault and put him in a cell untill he recovers than have a new spanking prison built to house and feed him.
Just an example again to compare the court system and its revenue commission to how it might have went in the old days with a smaller community.
Somewhere along the way bussiness got involved with law and it all got fooked up.

seannash

I wonder how many freemen claim child benefits,dole(if there not working),free dental for there kids,schooling for there kids and themselves,ambulances if they have an accident,treatment if they have an illness etc etc

clever_name

yekahS wrote: »

Exactly, its too simplistic to say that there has to be an injured party.

If you speed on the road, you may not kill anyone, but you have 'injured' every other road user by putting them at a higher risk of death.
I think that if a 'freeman' wants to not wear his seatbelt and live outside society, they should forgo the right to ambulances, hospitals, fire brigade etc.
Don't want to pay road tax? Fine, build your own road and travel on that.

Civilization itself is built on the idea of a social contract. The freeman want all the benefits of a contract, without any of the responsibilities that go with it.

This sums up exactly how I feel about the whole idea, well put sir.

Mahatma coat

yekahS wrote: »

Exactly, its too simplistic to say that there has to be an injured party.

If you speed on the road, you may not kill anyone, but you have 'injured' every other road user by putting them at a higher risk of death.

Bullsh!t
Thats the sort of Cop out I would have expectd from other posters, not you YekahS, Very much along the lines of
"wont somebody think of the Children"

I think that if a 'freeman' wants to not wear his seatbelt and live outside society, they should forgo the right to ambulances, hospitals, fire brigade etc.

and you will find that some Do, however If I am going to be taxed for all these things then they are mine as much as yours, what the freemen are against is not - Wearing a Seatbelt, its the idea of being finded for notr complying with some Rules foisted upon you without any form of conultation or Consent

Don't want to pay road tax? Fine, build your own road and travel on that.

Well maybe I'll just build me an airplane instead, oh Wait they claim to own the Sky too

Civilization itself is built on the idea of a social contract. The freeman want all the benefits of a contract, without any of the responsibilities that go with it.

No the freemen recognise the social Contract as that, A contract that is to be negotiated not a blanket licence for the State to extract revenue from you.

Being a freeman is not about the avoidance of your social responsibilities its about the adherence to them.

Yitzhak Rabin

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Bullsh!t
Thats the sort of Cop out I would have expectd from other posters, not you YekahS, Very much along the lines of
"wont somebody think of the Children"

Its far from a cop out. You wouldn't be so flippant if you lost a loved one due to someone speeding/drinkdriving etc. If you speed you put other road users at risk. Its not hysteria to suggest that those laws are in place to save lives, not generate revenue. The problem with only prosecuting when there is an "injured party" is it does nothing for prevention.

and you will find that some Do, however If I am going to be taxed for all these things then they are mine as much as yours, what the freemen are against is not - Wearing a Seatbelt, its the idea of being finded for notr complying with some Rules foisted upon you without any form of conultation or Consent

When you live in a democracy you elect your leaders, who make the legislation for you. When you find that you disagree with the vast majority you have to accept the will of others, even if you disagree. Societies completely fail without law and order.

If you want to live in a society where the government doesn't 'foist' its laws on you, try Somalia. No pesky elected government interfering in your life there.

Brown Bomber

phantom_lord wrote: »

If I recall correctly the youtube videos posted about it in the last thread where about one man being in court over a parking fine, another of a man trying to get out of a speeding ticket, and the other of a man trying to avoid paying road tax.

And most of the threads on that freeman Ireland site follow a similar pattern.

If I was a slave owner 200 years ago and was frozen in a block of ice while I was out walking the dog and was found and revived today do you think a homemade youtube video and a couple of anonymous internet posts would be enough to convince me of the evils of human slavery?

Point being while you may be right or wrong about the freeman idea you don't know enough to make an informed decision.